Main Menu

Bivens and Bivens and Bivens, oh my!

A pair of related things is a coincidence: three is an article

A couple of things have been simmering for a while on the back burner here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. One of them is an occasional email exchange with Jerry Collette creator of the Do It Yourself Ballot Challenge Kit and pro se plaintiff in Collette v. Obama.  Jerry took me to task for not covering all of the causes of action in his Florida suit (my article: “The shotgun birther challenge”). Jerry wrote, and I’m confident he won’t mind me sharing this:

So, maybe a follow up on the complaint article:

  • negligence per se
  • bivens
  • standing in FL

The other nagging issue was a quote of the day I used a while back:

I am a natural born citizen of the United States, am at least thirty-five years of age, and have been a resident of the United States at least fourteen years.

– Barack Obama
– Sworn statement (2007)

I recently needed to use that to contradict what a birther said (that Obama had never …) and I couldn’t find where it came from. I could remember seeing it, but not where. I looked high and low for days and just could not find it. Fortunately, a commenter here, Jamese777,  serendipitously mentioned it and provided a link. Whose name appears on that nomination form? Don Bivens, Arizona campaign chair for Barack Obama.

Now today another commenter provided a link to the Motion to Dismiss in the DC case of Montgomery Blair Sibley. What is in that document?

… this case largely embodies the same set of allegations [as other dismissed challenges of Obama’s eligibility], with the exception of the inclusion of a separate and apparently unrelated Bivens claim against the United States Marshals Service and two Deputy U.S. Marshal John Doe defendants.

Eric J. Soskin

I’ll leave Don Bivens to his own devices. This article is about the Bivens claim in Collette.

 

The Wikipedia has a short article on the case  of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents. In short, the Supreme Court in Bivens recognized that an important individual right could be violated and that the only conventional relief might be injunctive (the court orders that the defendant stop violating the plaintiffs’ rights) and injunctive relief is against future actions and doesn’t redress past actions. The Court said that an implied remedy must exist for an important rights violation even though there’s no statute.

In the Sibley case, the “Bivens claim” really has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility, so I won’t mention it further. Mr. Collette, however, makes it a central part of his strategy in the Ballot Challenge Kit. From the Kit:

Bivens

Under the Bivens theory, when no specific remedy exists for the violation of the rights at issue, the existence of a remedy for the violation is implied from the importance of the right violated. It’s pretty hard to get something much more important than having a president of the United States who does not meet the constitutional requirements for office.

Bivens is a federal case and a federal theory. However, there is no reason that the same concept cannot be advanced, without calling it Bivens, in state court.

This theory fits particularly well with Fla. Const. art. I, § 21. Even in other states that may not have such a provision in their state constitutions, some judges are going to glom onto this concept and agree with us. It’ll only take one courageous judge, somewhere, anywhere, to make a difference.

I am not a lawyer, but I see two fundamental issues in pursuing such a claim. In Collette’s own lawsuit in Florida, he applies Bivens by saying (selected from several similar statements, internal numbering omitted):

The reelection of defendant Obama to the office of President of the United States, for another term, while he fails to meet the Eligibility Requirements, would further deprive plaintiff of his right to not be governed by office holders who do not meet the Eligibility Requirements.

The plaintiff is entitled to relief from violations of such right, past, current, and anticipated. No specific causes of action or remedies exist for violations of the right at issue. Accordingly, the existence of remedies for the violations is implied from the importance of the right violated.

First, Collette never cites any constitutional provision or statute that gives him the right “not be governed by office holders who do not meet the Eligibility Requirements.” Collette elsewhere says this right is “by implication” from the Constitution’s Eligibility Clause. However, this is a very broad implication, and it’s certainly not  any enumerated right in the Constitution. I would expect a lawyer making a novel claim such as this to try to find come analogous court ruling where a right was created from a similar Constitutional provision. (Collette mentions Roe v. Wade in comments, but that would seem to be a much more fundamental right than presidential eligibility.) Certainly the court is not going to try to invent an argument on the plaintiff’s behalf when the plaintiff doesn’t make it himself. I learned long ago that “it’s obvious” doesn’t get very far.

A second problem is that to invoke Bivens, it would seem to be necessary to demonstrate that there is no other remedy. While it is a blunt sword, one remedy would be to petition Congress not to certify the election of a re-elected Obama under the “failure to qualify” language of the 20th Amendment.

Creating a way for the court to redress an injury is just one leg of the standing question, but what about the injury itself?

Standing is the reef that sank many an anti-Obama lawsuit. Collette cites the Florida Constitution:

SECTION 21. Access to courts.—The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

Does this say that everybody has standing for everything?

I came across a fairly important case in Florida, Wexler v. Lepore, 878 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)1. I find it cited in other cases on standing. It’s an interesting case in that a Florida election official is the defendant. The issue is whether or not Florida can use touch-screen voting machines that do not create a paper record. Plaintiff (and Congressman) Wexler argued that Florida law required a recount in some situations, and that a touch-screen voting machine cannot be recounted. When the case reached the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals the issue of standing was addressed. The court said:

Whether a party has standing to bring an action is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. See Alachua County v. Scharps, 855 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In conducting the review, this court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true. See Hospice of Palm Beach County, Inc. v. State, Agency for Healthcare Admin., 876 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The party must allege that he has suffered or will suffer a special injury. See Scharps, 855 So.2d at 198. Thus, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has a sufficient interest at stake in the controversy which will be affected by the outcome of the litigation. See id.

Both Secretary Hood and Supervisor Lepore argue that because Congressman Wexler faces no opposition in the upcoming election, he has been effectively re-elected, and has no standing as a candidate. We reject that argument. We hold that Congressman Wexler has standing to bring this action in his capacity as a candidate seeking re-election.

See also Pandya v. Israel, 761 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000):

We agree with Judge Kroll’s analysis of this issue:

A party has standing when he has a sufficient stake in a justiciable controversy. To establish standing a party must have an injury in fact for which relief is likely to redress and, in non-constitutional cases, the interest must fall within a statutory or constitutional guarantee (i.e. the zone of interest). Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

In Peregood v. Cosmides, 663 So.2d 665 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) the court also said:

The injury must be distinct and palpable. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). It may not be abstract, conjectural or hypothetical. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 741, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3319, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).

Does any state court (or federal for that  matter) have the right to rule on the eligibility of any candidate for President, or is exclusively the prerogative of the Congress? Is the redress of Mr. Collette’s complaint properly addressed through a petition to Congress?

Perhaps one day, I’ll look into “negligence per se.” Still, I think that Mr. Collette’s case is

Doomed

Learn more:


1It appears that this case was heard separately in federal and state court. Here is the 11th Circuit Opinion. I am only looking at the state case.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

161 Responses to Bivens and Bivens and Bivens, oh my!

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 3, 2012 at 11:51 pm #

    I appreciate a well-reasoned legal brief just as I appreciate a work of art. I’m not a lawyer or an artist. I look forward to reading what the real lawyers do with this case.

  2. avatar
    nbc April 3, 2012 at 11:52 pm #

    SECTION 21. Access to courts.—The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.

    Does this say that everybody has standing for everything?

    Nope… If there is no standing there is no injury. Sigh…

  3. avatar
    Jamese777 April 4, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Glad that I could help, serendipitously, Doc!
    I use that Arizona Ballot Nomination Paper with birthers quite frequently and it often shuts them down and shuts them up.
    I find it interesting that the Cold Case Posse seems to have no interest in an official state document from Arizona that has been around since November 30, 2007 (when it was notarized) in which Barack Obama attests and signs to being a natural born citizen of the United States and that statement has gone unchallenged in Arizona.

  4. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 1:16 am #

    Mr. Colette is wrong. There is a remedy to deal with a President who is not eligible. The electoral college can decide not to select him or her. Congress can decide not to accept what the electoral college has decided. And if the President is sworn in, the House may impeach him and the Senate may convict. It’s all there, relatively close to the natural born citizen requirement. One wonders how Mr. Colette missed it? Perhaps he missed President Clinton being impeached, but I’m sure it was in all the papers and there is probably a fleeting reference to it in Wikipedia. Surely what Mr. Clinton did can’t be as bad as being a usurper in the White House, so surely some Representative can introduce the motion to impeach the President. There’s that “You lie!” guy. The President and he are not going on any double dates any time soon. I wonder why he hasn’t moved to impeach the President? Isn’t lying about what is in the health care bill an impeachable offense?

  5. avatar
    The Magic M April 4, 2012 at 7:30 am #

    While I understand the concept of standing (I believe every jurisdictional system has it), there’s one thing that has bothered me when looking at how the courts handle some of its aspects in birther cases.

    One of the birther arguments is, as explained above, that they want redress from the injury caused by having an ineligible President. Courts then basically said “that’s a generalized grievance, not particular injury”.

    Am I correct in assuming that relates only to the fact that no specific *injury* could be shown (such as “I have this specific monetary loss” or “this specific citizen’s right is being violated”)?
    Am I further correct this does not simply say “some violation of rights which affects everyone does not give standing to anyone” as birthers interpret it?

    Let’s say Congress passes a law that effectively nullifies the 2nd amendment.
    To have standing, I only need to show it causes specific injury, such as “I can no longer exercise my 2nd amendment rights, for if I do, said law says I’ll get 5 years prison time”.
    If I don’t own a gun, I don’t have specific present injury (that the law would affect me in the future if I were to buy a gun doesn’t constitute present injury), so I don’t have standing.
    But the court can’t say “the law affects everyone who owns a gun the same way, to it’s a generalized grievance, thus no standing”, right?

    So the problem the birthers have with standing is that they cannot show particularized current injury, not that everyone is affected the same way by an (allegedly) ineligible President, correct?

  6. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    Magic-I guess I would say that the various qualifications set forth for President and other offices do not specify or even imply specific rights for individual citizens. They are part of the mechanism by which government functions, but not fundamental human rights. In fact, the recognition that the Constitution did not actually provide rights for individual citizens was why the Bill of Rights was added as a set of amendments.

    For example, the Constitution provides that each state is entitled to 2 Senators. But sometimes, a Senator willl die or resign and a given state will have only 1 until a new one is chosen. In theory, a state could even have 0 Senators at a given moment. Suppose a critical piece of legislation is passed by a single vote during the time a particular state does not have 2 Senators-can a resident of that state sue and claim his rights were violated? No, because having 2 Senators at all times is not an individual right.

    Same with a President you consider unqualified or one you think didn’t actually win (like Bush in 2000). Your individual rights have not been violated.

  7. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 4, 2012 at 8:09 am #

    John Reilly:
    Mr. Colette is wrong.

    There’s a shocker.

  8. avatar
    Tarrant April 4, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    The “injury” has to be particularized to you, and have either happened, or be imminent (if such a gun law is passed, and you already own a gun, that’s likely enough).

    The thing that stymies the birthers is that te President it’s doing anything that specifically affects THEM that is a direct result of him being a “usurper”. If he ordered them, speciocally, arrested, maybe. For those laws they say wre signed by him that were also passed by Congress, they can challenge the law directly. Purpura v Sebilius tried the “Attack laws via eligibility” tack and was rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

    Just saying “I was harmed because the United States is harmed” or “I was harmed because I have a right to vote for eligible candidates” is not going to be sufficient, especially when they HAD the opportunity to vote for other candidates throughout the entire process.

    This is akin to taxpayer standing cases, where someone says that some use of tax dollars is wrong and they say that as a taxpayer they are injured when some tiny fraction of their money is use for a purpose they don’t like (happens often with federal aid money for things like, say, birth control). They fact that someone in office has different priorities than the voter is not an injury, and in such cases – as some judges have said during various eligibility cases – their recourse is to vote for a different candidate, and if said candidate loses, that’s the will of the people.

  9. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    The “generalized” also refers to that this is not an “injury” specific to you as an individual but a theoretical injury to a mass of individuals.

    As such the redress (in this case) is available to you and the populace via the ballot box.

    The 2nd Amendment analogy is a little strained as this right is already constrained in a wide variety of ways and varying wildly by state and is an individualized “right”.

    You can chose to purchase or not purchase a firearm, you cannot chose whether there is a President or not. You can chose to vote for a specific Presidential candidate, if he’s not the winner tough titty, you will still have a President.

    For example the two 2A cases in DC and Chicago where the right HAD been completely abrogated led to the SC ruling that both cities MUST allow purchase of firearms (generally handguns) to individuals not otherwise prohibited due to criminal past, mental defect etc. Both cities now officially permit this purchase HOWEVER have made it extremely difficult leading to being almost a prohibition

    (The problem further with the 2nd Amendment as an exemplar is that it has only been very recently incorporated against the states and as yet no case has hit the Supreme Court which directly addresses the secondary and defining issue of the level of scrutiny that needs to be applied against the right)

    If you are interested in seeing real Constitutional law evolves, the impact of English Common Law on the US, how the Founding Fathers thought, what arcane words [NBC anyone… 😎 ] mean Constitutionally and how to write good legal and amicus briefs then reading the DC V Heller and McDonald V Chicago briefs are an excellent primer.

  10. avatar
    Keith April 4, 2012 at 9:02 am #

    Scientist: For example, the Constitution provides that each state is entitled to 2 Senators. But sometimes, a Senator willl die or resign and a given state will have only 1 until a new one is chosen. In theory, a state could even have 0 Senators at a given moment.

    Thus, we have the 17th Amendment to break the logjam where several states were without Senators for relatively long periods of time due to internal State politics and the inability for the State to pick a Senator.

  11. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 9:16 am #

    This was the important paragraph showing the right for which the Bivens claim is brought:

    “70. The Eligibility Requirements, by implication, give plaintiff a constitutional right to not be governed by officials who fail to meet them.”

    The compilation you cited in the article:

    “The reelection of defendant Obama to the office of President of the United States, for another term, while he fails to meet the Eligibility Requirements, would further deprive plaintiff of his right to not be governed by office holders who do not meet the Eligibility Requirements.”

    was related to my negligence per se cause of action, not my Bivens claim.

    As you cited, the Florida court found:

    “… that Congressman Wexler has standing.”

    So should I.

    A petition to Congress is not a court remedy available to me. It does not interfere with my standing to be in a Florida court asking for the relief I seek.

    As far as this being doomed, as I told you, I recognize that my Bivens cause of action is completely novel, and a long shot. However, I also put in a negligence per se cause of action, for which there are volumes of case law in my support, and I have properly pled all of the required elements of that cause of action.

    Best,

    Jerry

  12. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Jerry Collette: “70. The Eligibility Requirements, by implication, give plaintiff a constitutional right to not be governed by officials who fail to meet them.”

    There is no such right. You might like there to be one, but there isn’t. Nor is there a right to be governed by someone who actually won the election (Bush v. Gore, 2000). By the way, winning the election is at least as important as natural born citizen. The Constitution spends many more words discussing how to determine the winner of the election. Where were you in 2000?

  13. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2012 at 9:37 am #

    “The Eligibility Requirements, by implication, give plaintiff a constitutional right to not be governed by officials who fail to meet them.”

    “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

    – U.S. District Court Judge Clay Daniel Land

  14. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    There was no right before Roe v. Wade found one, either, and it still isn’t expressed in law. It was implied. The court might find there is one in my case, too. I recognize it’s a long shot. We can argue all day between us whether there is or isn’t such a right, but only a court can say for sure. I’m hoping they will. And, if they don’t, I have negligence per se as a fallback.

    Scientist: There is no such right.You might like there to be one, but there isn’t.

  15. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    “It’ll only take one courageous judge, somewhere, anywhere, to make a difference.”

    ANY…..DAY….NOW….!!! (just so long as there are no damn traitorous judges)

    Sorry Jerry,

    You see in THIS country there is this whole boring, mundane piece in law called “Assumption of innocence”. What it means is that unless you can PROVE something the opposing party can’t be found guilty.

    Next,…your complaint…really….very sad.

    You see, in law you there isn’t a “throw the spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks” process in indictments the way you did it.

    You could try and file 1 suit on each of the 3 of your stale and legally and Constitutionally unsupported opinions but you don’t get to say “He’s an Usurperator ’cause of XXX or if that doesn’t work YYY or if that doesn’t fly ZZZ” in the same complaint

    You see in the real world the prosecutor (which you ain’t) route is MULTIPLE supported indictments in the hope one sticks.

    Then there is the fact that you don’t support ANY of your OPINIONS with either legally recognizable facts, legal authorities, case law or Constitutional law.

    The simple FACT that you continually use the phrase, and I quote, “is informed and believes simply demonstrates a complete failure to grasp that which is evidence and that which is hearsay….Guess what, the court says hearsay is a no-no.

    So, no standing, no facts, all opinion……buh-bye.

    [FIFY. Doc]

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 9:58 am #

    While I think as a general proposition that you can’t get where you want to go, still if you want to try get there, you need to present a legal argument for what you’re asserting. As I said in the article, the court is not going to do this for you.

    I didn’t mention it in the article, but in one of the cases I read concerning standing, the defense made that same argument: that the plaintiff made generalized assertions but cited no authority and made no legal argument in support of the assertions. Based on numerous other cases I can imagine what the Motion to Dismiss in your case will look like, and I don’t think you’re prepared to answer it. I know that you think answering a motion to dismiss is something that comes later, but take to heart what Jesus said:

    (Luke 14:28-30 NASB) For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? “Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, This man began to build and was not able to finish.'”

    Jerry Collette: A petition to Congress is not a court remedy available to me. It does not interfere with my standing to be in a Florida court asking for the relief I seek.

  17. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    Borvil,

    Much of what you say is related to criminal law. This is a civil complaint.

    Evidence does not go into a civil complaint.

    Pleading on information and belief is proper civil pleading form.

    Best,

    Jerry

    bovril:
    [stuff related to criminal law and other inapplicable ideas]

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    That doesn’t bother me. A complaint doesn’t need to actually present the evidence, but say what the trial will show, as the plaintiff believes it. Actually, I criticize some birthers for putting in too much. In determining standing, the court will assume that the claim is true. The court will say, “assuming the President was born in Kenya, does Jerry have standing?”

    However, it is essential (IANAL) in a complaint to state the legal basis and the authority under which the suit is brought. The Court is not going to assume that the authority exists. Sometimes the court will help out a pro se defendant when the cause is obvious, but here Jerry is breaking new ground with a wish instead of a tractor.

    Of course, Obama wasn’t born in Kenya and if it ever got to trial (which it won’t), Jerry couldn’t prove the contrary. Obama is 100% eligible, so the only question is how far Jerry gets before he loses. I’m thinking not very far.

    bovril: The simple FACT that you continually use the phrase, and I quote, “is informed and believes simply demonstrates a complete failure to grasp that which is evidence and that which is hearsay….Guess what, the court says hearsay is a no-no.

  19. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    While I think as a general proposition that you can’t get where you want to go, still if you want to try get there, you need to present a legal argument for what you’re asserting. As I said in the article, the court is not going to do this for you.

    Doc,

    Legal argument doesn’t go into a complaint. My legal argument will be filed along with my opposition docs to the defense motion to dismiss, which most of us anticipate will be filed soon. All I’ve laid out so far are the basic theories of my strategy.

    Best,

    Jerry

  20. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 10:16 am #

    Jerry Collette: There was no right before Roe v. Wade found one, either, and it still isn’t expressed in law. It was implied. The court might find there is one in my case, too. I recognize it’s a long shot. We can argue all day between us whether there is or isn’t such a right, but only a court can say for sure. I’m hoping they will. And, if they don’t, I have negligence per se as a fallback.

    Look, my friend, even if some court found a “right to have a natural born citizen as President”, you HAVE one now. On that, every single court is agreed.

    You, sir, are trampling on my rights as as taxpayer to have the proportion of my taxes that funds the courts go only to resolve worthwhile cases. You should be assessed 100% of the costs involved in dealing with your junk “cases”. If you want to tilt at windmills buy your own lance and horse, OK?

  21. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Mr. Collette: You have failed to respond to my post that the Constitution sets forth very specific provisions about how to deal with a President who you think is ineligible. I join with Doc and others in thinking you have no standing, but part of your complaint was that you have no remedy other than to imply one, and I have pointed out the remedies available. That you don’t like the outcome of the popular vote, the electoral college vote, the refusal of any Congressman to move to impeach the President, does not give you a right without a remedy. Your remedy is there, Judge Carter pointed out the sheer utter inanity of allowing citizens to file lawsuits all over the place trying to obtain a result that they could not obtain by the ballot box, in the electoral college, or in Congress.

  22. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 10:24 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: (Luke 14:28-30 NASB) For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? “Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, This man began to build and was not able to finish.’”

    The Catholic Church has been violating that advice for centuries, building cathedrals over centuries and funding them over that entire period. A wonderful example is the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, designed by the great architect Antoni Gaudi. Work began in 1883 and is still on-going. They hope to complete it in 2026, though the European financial crisis may push that back.

  23. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 10:35 am #

    John Reilly:
    Mr. Collette:You have failed to respond to my post that the Constitution sets forth very specific provisions about how to deal with a President who you think is ineligible.

    John,

    I can’t reply to every post, nor even read them all. I haven’t seen any specific constitutional provisions that deal with an ineligible president. In my complaint, I alleged:

    18. Neither the U.S. Constitution, nor any federal statute enacted thereunder, provide for a procedure to assure that Presidents of the United States and candidates for said office meet the Eligibility Requirements.

    19. Therefore, according to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the states and the people retain the right to make such assurances.

    We’ll see if the defendants, in their answer, cite what specific provisions you say exist, then we’ll see how the courts rule. We can argue these thing here and elsewhere until the cows come home and it won’t matter. Only what the courts say does.

    Best,

    Jerry

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    I noticed so far that you haven’t responded to the issue of standing that I raised. You might further look at ALACHUA COUNTY v. SCHARPS 855 So.2d 195 (2003)

    Note what the court said about a requirement for “special injury” and the court’s rejection of a claim for Constitutional standing because, among other reasons, the claim was not specific.

    Jerry Collette: Legal argument doesn’t go into a complaint. My legal argument will be filed along with my opposition docs to the defense motion to dismiss, which most of us anticipate will be filed soon

  25. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    Jerry: Where were you in 2000? There was actual evidence, from a very careful study by a consortium of newspapers that Gore really won Florida and thus the election. So Bush was a real usurper, since he literally stole the office from its rightful occupant (whereas in the case of an ineligible President it’s not clear who the rightful occupant would be). So where were you?

    Again, you have no right to waste our tax dollars on your nonsense. None.

  26. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Scientist: I believe that the newspaper study to which you refer found that Bush won Florida. To find that Gore won would require generous review of disputed ballots. See, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm

    Having said that, Scientist, I do agree that there is a legitimate issue as to whether the Supreme Court should have stopped the counting of ballots.

  27. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 10:54 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I noticed so far that you haven’t responded to the issue of standing that I raised.

    You’re right, Doc. I was hoping that the defendants would cite the same authority thinking they had something. I’ll reply to it then. I think I’ll have standing, just like the court you cited found that Wexler did.

    Best,

    Jerry

  28. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Jerry Collette: All I’ve laid out so far are the basic theories of my strategy.

    If an argument / case is true / just, it should be self-evident. “Theories”? “Strategy”? Sounds like you’re making a persuasive argument. I understand it’s a civil case, you have to convince someone you’ve been injured. The truth doesn’t need selling.

  29. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 10:59 am #

    Jerry, you ducked the issue. There is no constitutional provision dealing with “ineligible” presidents. There is an elaborate mechanism to select the President, and to get rid of one who has done something wrong. The remedy is there. You need to write a response that begins, “even though the Electoral College selected President Obama over Senator McCain, and even though Congress accepted that decision without objection, and even though the Chief Justice swore in the President (twice!),and even though not a single Congressman has introduced a motion to impeach the President for whatever ineligibility issue I have raised todsay, I Jerry, may go to court and get a District Court judge to say all of that Constitutional effort is meaningless.” I assure you, if you do not hone your arguments with Doc, Scientist and others, and my humble views, you will be tossed out, embarassed, and contribute further to a birther record of over 100 fails. The government will file a five page motion to dismiss, and you probably wonlt even get to argue your case.

  30. avatar
    JD Reed April 4, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Two comments to Jerry:
    1. Didn’t most of the early birther court cases founder on the standing question, with judges throwing out lawsuits because that the injury for which you seek a remedy must be particularized to you or a limited number of people, rather than the public at large?
    2. “One courageous judge” ruling in favor of a birther case is not going to be a game changer, although it would draw a short-lived flurry of attention from the media and the public. Reason is, it would be swiftly appealed, and based on the overwhelming rulings against the birthers in all cases to date, the appellate court would be almost certain to overturn that ruling. And the Supremes would then refuse to hear an appeal.
    Reminds me of Ecclesiastes 9:11:
    “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.”
    The picaresque writer Damon Runyan last century added his commentary:
    “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
    The way to bet in your case, Jerry, is that you lose.

  31. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    1. Those were mostly federal, and none were FL.

    2. Few cases have ruled on the merits and few have gone to appeals. One courageous judge would allow both to occur.

    JD Reed:
    Two comments to Jerry:
    1. Didn’t most of the early birther court cases founder on the standing question, with judges throwing out lawsuits because that the injury for which you seek a remedy must be particularized to you or a limited number of people, rather than the public at large?
    2. “One courageous judge” ruling in favor of abirther case is not going to be a game changer, although it would draw a short-lived flurry of attention from the media and the public. Reason is, it would be swiftly appealed, and based on the overwhelming rulings against the birthers in all cases to date, the appellate court would be almost certain to overturn that ruling. And the Supremes would then refuse to hear an appeal.
    Reminds me of Ecclesiastes 9:11:
    “The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.”The picaresque writer Damon Runyan last century addedhis commentary:
    “The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that’s the way to bet.”
    The way to bet in your case, Jerry, is that you lose.

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 11:20 am #

    We liberals are a generous lot.

    But the key point here is that while the question of who got the most votes in the 2008 Presidential vote in Florida is open to debate, the fact that George W. Bush was subsequently the lawfully-elected President of the United States is not.

    John Reilly: To find that Gore won would require generous review of disputed ballots.

  33. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 4, 2012 at 11:21 am #

    John Reilly:
    Jerry, you ducked the issue.There is no constitutional provision dealing with “ineligible” presidents.

    Bingo. That’s why I’m in court.

  34. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Jerry Collette: Borvil, Much of what you say is related to criminal law. This is a civil complaint.Evidence does not go into a civil complaint. Pleading on information and belief is proper civil pleading form.Best,Jerry

    Oops, wrong again Jerry

    The legal principles and requirements are IDENTICAL, the standard of proof MAY vary.

    You ain’t got standing, you ain’t got proof and really all you have is innuendo and hearsay…remember your very own words….“is informed and believes means Buh-Bye

    You really don’t get this “Law” thing do you?

    Tell you want, I’m feeling in an expansive mood,I will bet you one crisp shiny dollar against one hundred from me that you and your case get blown out of the water. I will happily send the money to Doc C or other mutually agreeable 3rd party to hold and disburse.

    100-1 odds in your favor, care to put one single solitary dollar where your “informed and believes” stand..?

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Wexler had standing because the court considered him a candidate. His interest was specific and special, not the generalized interest of a voter and a taxpayer.

    Obviously, I can’t respond to an argument you haven’t made yet. Still, based on all the arguments others have made, I can’t quite see how your optimism is justified.

    Jerry Collette: I think I’ll have standing, just like the court you cited found that Wexler did.

  36. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    Jerry Collette: Bingo. That’s why I’m in court.

    You intend to argue the Constituion has injured you and must be corrected?

  37. avatar
    John Reilly April 4, 2012 at 11:27 am #

    Jerry:

    There you go again. Taking one sentence out of context and pretending that the actual Constitutional provisions which deal with your precise situation don’t matter. Is it any wonder that birther lawsuits fail?

    You may lose to an empty chair.

  38. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 11:28 am #

    John Reilly: Scientist: I believe that the newspaper study to which you refer found that Bush won Florida. To find that Gore won would require generous review of disputed ballots. See, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm
    Having said that, Scientist, I do agree that there is a legitimate issue as to whether the Supreme Court should have stopped the counting of ballots.

    John: It’s not my goal to flog that dead horse. By the broadest standards of counting disputed ballots, Gore won; by narrower ones, Bush did.

    My point is that the data to support Gore having won Florida was infinite-fold stronger than the data regarding Obama’s ineligibility (since division by zero yields infinity). Yet, Gore supporters did not pursue endless court cases. Nor would they have gotten anywhere if they had, since Bush’s election was ratified by Congress at which point it became legally moot.

    All I ask is the same courtesy from Jerry et al. What we have gotten is 3.5 years of contempt of Congress and the people from them. We have every reason to expect 4.5 more.

  39. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 11:31 am #

    Jerry Collette: 1. Those were mostly federal, and none were FL.2. Few cases have ruled on the merits and few have gone to appeals. One courageous judge would allow both to occur.

    Jerry: If you wish to conduct a legal experiment you should pay all the expenses. Not the taxpayers, for whom you show contempt.

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 11:37 am #

    While the citations at the end of my article are relatively straightforward, the process through which I arrived at them was not. The end of the article was totally rewritten half a dozen times and I read tons of stuff, largely dead ends. What I was trying to answer was the question of whether standing in Florida is different from standing everywhere else. My opinion, after changing my mind several times is that it is not.

    In several Florida appeals on standing the Florida courts cited federal cases and what I thought was a unique doctrine on standing and mootness turns out to be federal as well. Roe v. Wade was technically moot at the time of appeal because the baby had by then been born.

  41. avatar
    JD Reed April 4, 2012 at 11:39 am #

    Jerry, you also avoided dealing with my assertion that any birther victory in a trial court would almost immediately be thrown out by an appeals court. You intimate that Florida may be different. But Florida is not an independent republic, it’s a state within a federated republic. Thus an issue dealing with a national issue – the filling of the office of president – belongs in federal court. The president would be within his constitutional rights to demand that your lawsuit be switched to the federal court system, because it’s a national issue, and because of diversity of citizenship.
    Obama’s team won’t do that because they don’t take you seriously, I believe.
    But a ruling in favor of the birthers by a Florida state court could be — and virtually certainly would be — appealed to a federal court.
    You’re also light on another key element, which is proof that this president is ineligible. None that the birthers have dragged up to date would stand up in court.
    Sorry.

  42. avatar
    Rickey April 4, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Jerry Collette: You’re right, Doc. I was hoping that the defendants would cite the same authority thinking they had something. I’ll reply to it then. I think I’ll have standing, just like the court you cited found that Wexler did.

    Except that your claim of standing is not analogous to Wexler’s claim of standing.

    Wexler, as a candidate for office, has a particularized interest in making sure that his ability to call for a recount is preserved. He would sustain a concrete injury if he called for a recount and was told that it couldn’t be done because there are no ballots to recount.

    If Obama is ineligible to be President, on the other hand, the injury to you is no greater than the injury to every other citizen, hence you have no standing.

    It also doesn’t help your case when your Complaint contains allegations which are demonstrably untrue, such as your claim that the United States does not allow dual citizenship and your claim that in 1961 Hawaii issued birth certificates to people who were not born in Hawaii.

  43. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    Jerry, you are up a legal creek with no paddle. John Reilly has explained there exists a Constitutionally legal way to remove a president. It’s called impeachment and guess what, it works.

    Go look up the Richard Nixon presidency and his impeachment process. He resigned before impeachment could happen, but he would have been removed from office if he had not.

    Don’t you think the House of Representatives have looked at this possibility? Believe me they have. In the real legal world there is ZERO doubt of the president’s eligibility. All the “take him at his word” crap that is thrown out there is nothing more than playing to their base to keep them stirred up.

    Currently, Republicans are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Simply put, they have to keep their base happy, but by doing that they alienate all other demographics. And with just support from their base, they cannot take the Whitehouse and stand a good chance of losing both houses of congress as well.

    They are in panic mode at this point. In every poll, the president leads every republican candidate, in some cases by double digits. Republicans are looking at losses that could doom them to the political wilderness for several election cycles. If they had a prayer of making the “ineligible” charge stick, they would go for it.

    They don’t. When there exists a legal path written out in the Constitution to accomplish a goal and that path doesn’t work because the facts are not there to support it, you are not allowed to just make up new legal arguments and expect the court system to validate them. That is why every court case has been kicked out and also why no respected lawyer will take a birther case. You guys are reduced to the dregs of the legal world, lawyers like Orly who are a laughing stock.

    Stop and look at the facts. There are legit reasons why these cases are continually being tossed and it isn’t going to change no matter how many phanton arguments are used.

  44. avatar
    Paper April 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm #

    Among everything else, I think of a court’s natural born predilection to avoid making rulings when they do not need to do so. Thus, if it even gets that far, I could see a judge reasoning, is there such a right?…well, whether or not there is, I don’t need to address that issue, because this president is eligible. So even if a citizen has a right to be governed by an eligible president, there is no injury here, no question of ineligibility, and the plaintiffs have not even come close to demonstrating that there is a probable case. So, I don’t need to rule on a right that has no bearing here.

    There are too many ways for this case to be shot down. We’ll see which way the courts use.

    Furthermore, even if there were such a right, there is, as others have pointed out, a remedy, which beyond Congress’s initial certification is impeachment, a remedy the constitution vests in the Congress, as elected by the citizens.

    That the bar to full impeachment and removal from office is extremely high is on purpose. I find it difficult to picture a judge (and certainly not the Supreme Court) ruling that we have the *right* as citizens to lower the bar, or a *right* to directly determine those standards.

    We have a right to vote. That is the democratic right that empowers our republic. As such, we vest our representatives with the right to determine ultimate eligibility. Eligibility is the right of Congress to determine. This is not a tenth amendment right reserved to the states or the people; it is a right already delegated to the United States by the constitution.

    Then, in the final analysis, any challenge to Congress’s authority ultimately is the right of the Supreme Court, not me, most especially when, as here, no injury (general or specific) exists. My right to overrule the government is expressed by my right to vote. I have a right, perhaps, to the Congress doing its job, but that job is for them to make the decision, not me. They certified the president, and thus did their job. For all their political vitriol, they have not impeached this president. That also is their right, to do or not do.

    The Supreme Court is not going to jump into a no brainer and challenge Congress. Even in Bush v. Gore, where the court even pleaded that their ruling was a one-time thing without precedent, the court had an excuse in a close-call situation with a lot of urgency involved. None of that even applies here. This is not anywhere near a close call. There are not two legitimate sides to this discussion (as demonstrated by every challenge being soundly rejected before they even get out of the gate). Nor is it a clear abuse of power, where the Supreme Court might feel compelled to jump in…say, if the Congress certified an eighteen year old as eligible for president.

    In the end, as Jerry Collette notes, what matters is what the courts say. Thus I am interested in *how* they shoot this down. Whatever the pros or cons of my own reasoning, I would bet a lot that they will take the simplest, most direct (even unsatisfyingly blunt) route to knocking this down.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    The issue of standing must be resolved at the beginning, before any other issue can be reviewed. That’s why birther cases are generally dismissed on standing. It’s not because there aren’t other problems, but because the question of standing comes first.

    I would be interested to see any case where a person whose interest is just that of a citizen, a taxpayer or a voter attained standing, and for the record I am not asserting that this is impossible in a state court. I just don’t know. If there is such a case (and we’re talking about Florida), it would certainly be of great interest to look at.

    Actually, there is a standing exception for a taxpayer in Florida, called the Rickman Rule, but it doesn’t apply here because taxation is not the issue.

    Paper: There are too many ways for this case to be shot down. We’ll see which way the courts use.

  46. avatar
    JoZeppy April 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Jerry Collette: Borvil, Much of what you say is related to criminal law. This is a civil complaint.Evidence does not go into a civil complaint. Pleading on information and belief is proper civil pleading form.Best,Jerry

    Pleading on information and belief is proper, only after diligently researching both the facts and law. Simply inserting the words “based on information and belief” doesn’t magically make a frivolous claim a meritorious claim. You’re still stuck with the fact that there is a mountain of evidence pointing to the President being born in Hawaii, and not a shred of evidence pointing to him being born anywhere else. Add to that you recycle the claim about Granny Obama claiming to have been there when he was born, when that is not the case. At best, you have a series of leading questions, with ambiguous answers, followed by a complete rejection of the notion. Your claim would probably fall under somoething we call “lack of candor with a court.” You’re also still stuck with the fact that you’re dead wrong about the US accepting dual citizens, something that could have been easily checked, and something that you should have checked before filing a complaint. You do have a duty to the minimum amount of research to make sure your claim is based on real law…the words “information and belief” don’t make that go away either. You’re also stuck with the fact that your entire claim about the President losing his citizenship, and requiring repatriotage has no support in the law, as the only way one can lose natural born citizenship is throught the affirmative action of renouncing ones citizenship, something there is neither evidence of, nor do you plea such. There is also the problem with your claim that parentage matters in that every court that has examined the issues has clearly stated that parentage doesn’t matter, something that basic research would have cleared up, and while you don’t have to make legal arguments in a complaint, basing a complaint on junk law is still a frivolous complaint….and finally, despite what you claim, Florida does require establishing standing, and showing particularized harm. Your claim of harm is no different than every other claim that has been booted out for lack of standing. Something that you should have looked into before filing your frivolous claim….so again, “information and belief” doesn’t wipe away all these fatal flaws in your complaint. It’s still frivolous, and it will be promptly dismissed (probably for lack of standing, without going into any of the other issues).

  47. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 12:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would be interested to see any case where a person whose interest is just that of a citizen, a taxpayer or a voter attained standing, and for the record I am not asserting that this is impossible in a state court. I

    Ankeny wasn’t running for anything in Indiana. Farrar wasn’t running for anything in Georgia.

    Personally, I think it’s ludicrous that courts allow non-candidates to challenge elections. It’s like the umpires allowing fans on the field to argue safe at first. But some state courts seem to allow it.

    Jerry might get standing, but he might be happier if he didn’t, because there are about 347 grounds he will lose on.

  48. avatar
    Rickey April 4, 2012 at 12:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    I would be interested to see any case where a person whose interest is just that of a citizen, a taxpayer or a voter attained standing,and for the record I am not asserting that this is impossible in a state court. I just don’t know. If there is such a case (and we’re talking about Florida), it would certainly be of great interest to look at.

    As many legal scholars have pointed out, if any of the birther lawsuits somehow gained transaction they would be transferred to Federal Court, because eligibility ultimately is a Federal issue. And then there is the fact that several states have already ruled that Obama is eligible.

  49. avatar
    BillTheCat April 4, 2012 at 12:45 pm #

    Jerry Collette: One courageous judge would allow both to occur.

    This is the entire basis of your ilk’s delusional thinking.

    “Just that ONE JUDGE, that’s all we need.”

    Well, no, no it isn’t. 1 victory, if you ever ever get one, will not reset precedent after losing 107 or so times. And by the way, the President wrapped up the nomination, so all of the bluster over challenging him in the primaries is over. But you all keep clinging to the idea that all you need is just that one. single. judge. Who understands and is a “patriot”!

    November is going to be a hell of a month for the birther crowd. but please, continue to grab at straws.

  50. avatar
    Majority Will April 4, 2012 at 12:51 pm #

    BillTheCat: This is the entire basis of your ilk’s delusional thinking.

    “Just that ONE JUDGE, that’s all we need.”

    Well, no, no it isn’t. 1 victory, if you ever ever get one, will not reset precedent after losing 107 or so times. And by the way, the President wrapped up the nomination, so all of the bluster over challenging him in the primaries is over. But you all keep clinging to the idea that all you need is just that one. single. judge. Who understands and is a “patriot”!

    November is going to be a hell of a month for the birther crowd. but please, continue to grab at straws.

    And to imply the other judges are cowards is despicable.

  51. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 4, 2012 at 12:52 pm #

    JoZeppy: You’re also stuck with the fact that your entire claim about the President losing his citizenship, and requiring repatriotage has no support in the law, as the only way one can lose natural born citizenship is throught the affirmative action of renouncing ones citizenship, something there is neither evidence of, nor do you plea such.

    Not only that, but the case law goes directly against that claim, especially the Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg. Perkins v. Elg states quite clearly that only the person can give up their citizenship, not any action by the parents. So, the hypothesis that Obama lost his citizenship when he was “adopted by Soetoro” would actually go against nearly 80 years of Supreme Court case law on the matter.

  52. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    dunstvangeet: would actually go against nearly 80 years of Supreme Court case law on the matter.

    What’s 80 years when they also ignore 114 years (WKA decision)? And 236 (Declaration of Independence)? And 392 (Mayflower)? And 405 (Jamestown)?

  53. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Lets us put on the rosiest of rosey colored Birther glasses for a moment and run the thought experiment where in some amazing manner a stout “Constitionalist” judge somehow finds this pile of malodorous poo to have standing and gets to the argument stage.

    Where is this evidence thing, you do remember, evidence, findings of fact etc..?

    You see, articles at WND or the ravings of racists, bigots and fascists on blogs ain’t evidence. In fact I seem to recall the WTF face Judge Malihi pulled when Mad Ole Orly tried to have her ‘zibbits entered as “personal knowledge and fact” as she had “personally’ downloaded them….

    Then there is the whole problem with that dusty old piece of paper the “Constitutionalists” pretend to wrap themselves in whilst actually crapping on it.

    You remember, the Constitution, funny old thing, core of the Republic and all that. The problem is, the Constitution lays out VERY precisely and exactly the manners in which a President may be removed from office. Strangely enough there is no “If a whiney sore loser who can’t stand the thought of a black Democrat as President stamps his widdle feet, the darkie will be frog marched out in chains”.

    So sorry, but hey what did them damn Founders know….

  54. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm #

    Jerry Collette: 1. Those were mostly federal, and none were FL.

    2. Few cases have ruled on the merits and few have gone to appeals. One courageous judge would allow both to occur.

    If the plaintiff can overcome the issue of standing and can actually plead a proper case, then the judge may have to rule on the merits. As to appeals, the Judge does not really control whether or not a party takes the ruling to a higher court.

    Using a State court for something that is clearly a Federal issue and a political one as well, is unlikely to succeed, even you know it as you already suggest that you need a “courageous judge”…

    Quite an uphill battle, legally speaking.

  55. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    Jerry Collette: “The reelection of defendant Obama to the office of President of the United States, for another term, while he fails to meet the Eligibility Requirements, would further deprive plaintiff of his right to not be governed by office holders who do not meet the Eligibility Requirements.”

    Exactly why you will have no standing, unlike Wexler:

    The party must allege that he has suffered or will suffer a special injury. See Scharps, 855 So.2d at 198. Thus, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has a sufficient interest at stake in the controversy which will be affected by the outcome of the litigation. See id.

  56. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 1:31 pm #

    Jerry Collette: “70. The Eligibility Requirements, by implication, give plaintiff a constitutional right to not be governed by officials who fail to meet them.”

    It fails to overcome the special injury requirement as it applies to any and all resident or citizen of Florida.

    But the eligibility requirement does not grant citizens a right, it in facts explicitly grants Congress the right to determine these issues.

  57. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 1:41 pm #

    Jerry,

    the president has already been proven to be eligible to hold office. You are not going to find a judge, state of federal who is going to rule differently.

    No matter where you go, you keep running up against a single hardcore fact. And that fact is this: his birth certificate has been designated legitimate by the only person in HI who has the authority to do this. He IS a natural born citizen.

    Nothing else matters. NOTHING. The longer you continue this fight, the more foolish you look and the less respect you get.

    If your goal is to appear in the history books as a footnote described as a “birther fool” then you are well on your way there. Other than that, you are accomplishing nothing.

  58. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter April 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

    I have a little different take on all this. Courts have some degree of wiggle room. There is some wiggle room in the law, in general, and this is obvious from 5-4 SCOTUS decisions. Some issues are just “kind of how the judge sees it.” Obamacare is a place where you will see this. Some judges are just going to be of the opinion that the individual mandate goes too far, and others won’t. This “opinion” will be expressed in legal terms, but it basically is going to come down to “opinions.”

    I think if the Birthers ever had any kind of legitimate, non-stupid claim, they would have already had the “wiggle room” expand to take them into account. Remember how Judge Land in Florida asked to see the fake Obama birth certificate, I think it was the Lucas Smith one.

    IMHO (which means in my human opinion) if that BC has been real, and Obama really was born in Mombasa or whatever, and had actually put something over on the American electorate, there would have been a different outcome. The Court may have found “standing.” At the very least, Orly Taitz would not have been sanctioned.

    So, when you wring all the legalese out of it, the real ultimate reasons the Birthers will fail is because the underlying claims are nonsensical. There is no “two citizen parents” requirement, and there is no evidence Obama was born anywhere except Hawaii.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  59. avatar
    clestes April 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Squeeky, courts do have some wriggle room, but not on a fact like the person with the power declares the birth certificate legit.

    What wriggle room is there? It either is or it is not. If this person of authority says it is so, then that is a fact a legal binding fact. Non-disputable in a real court of law. Court of public opinion yes, court of law, no.

    And this is what is going to knock birthers down everytime. Standing is an issue and a difficult one, but a judge can hold that standing exists. The fact of the BC being declared legit by a legal representative of HI, you can’t get around that.

  60. avatar
    Paper April 4, 2012 at 2:09 pm #

    Yes, it would be satisfying to see a more merited dismissal, and you’re no doubt right that standing will be the method. C’est la vie.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The issue of standing must be resolved at the beginning, before any other issue can be reviewed. That’s why birther cases are generally dismissed on standing. It’s not because there aren’t other problems, but because the question of standing comes first.

    I would be interested to see any case where a person whose interest is just that of a citizen, a taxpayer or a voter attained standing,and for the record I am not asserting that this is impossible in a state court. I just don’t know. If there is such a case (and we’re talking about Florida), it would certainly be of great interest to look at.

    Actually, there is a standing exception for a taxpayer in Florida, called the Rickman Rule, but it doesn’t apply here because taxation is not the issue.

  61. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 4, 2012 at 2:37 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter:
    Courts have some degree of wiggle room. There is some wiggle room in the law…I think if the Birthers ever had any kind of legitimate, non-stupid claim, they would have already had the “wiggle room” expand…

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    We’ve got a wiggle room. Now that you mention it, it could use expanding.

  62. avatar
    bovril April 4, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

    Squeeks,

    Whilst judges do have a limited power of interpretation (not wriggle room) they have that ONLY within the context of existing law and if there is a lack of clarity which alows interpretation.

    Where the law is either black book and settled OR explicitly does not lie within the prerogative of the court there is no area for interpretation.

    There is only one venue and one body to determine Presidentail eligibility and that is via the Constitution and Congress.

    Seperation of powers, Judical gets no hand on it on this SPECIFIC case

  63. avatar
    Jim April 4, 2012 at 3:04 pm #

    Really, they ought to give up on the Kenya birth. Everybody knows the President is an illegal alien from Vulcan.

    http://www.universetoday.com/94432/obama-and-uhura-go-vulcan/

  64. avatar
    Jim April 4, 2012 at 3:28 pm #

    Swensson v Obama denied by Georgia Supreme Court, if this image is correct

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/swenssonvobama.jpg/

  65. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

    Jim: Swensson v Obama denied by Georgia Supreme Court, if this image is correct

    Looks legit, even though it shows layers when importing it 🙂 Furthermore it is an expected outcome legally speaking.

    Poor Carl…

  66. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    nbc: Looks legit, even though it shows layers when importing it Furthermore it is an expected outcome legally speaking.

    Poor Carl…

    nbc: Looks legit, even though it shows layers when importing it Furthermore it is an expected outcome legally speaking.

    Poor Carl…

    A JPEG with layers? Mmmmmmmmh!

  67. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter April 4, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    clestes:

    And this is what is going to knock birthers down everytime. Standing is an issue and a difficult one, but a judge can hold that standing exists. The fact of the BC being declared legit by a legal representative of HI, you can’t get around that.

    I disagree. IF the Birthers had any actual evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, the fact that HI says it is legit would become subject to legal inquiry just like any other disputed fact. Until and unless the Birthers ever get something substantial, something outside of speculation and rumor, the BC will be presumed correct. In fact, it is slam dunk evidence at this point.

    But, the piece of paper isn’t magic. It is just evidence, and evidence which is not easy to overcome, particularly when all the Birthers have are “feelings” that he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  68. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 4:02 pm #

    Sef April 4, 2012 at 4:00 pm (Quote) #

    nbc: Looks legit, even though it shows layers when importing it Furthermore it is an expected outcome legally speaking.

    Poor Carl…

    nbc: Looks legit, even though it shows layers when importing it Furthermore it is an expected outcome legally speaking.

    Poor Carl…

    A JPEG with layers? Mmmmmmmmh!

    A comment with layers? Mmmmmmmmh!

  69. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 4:04 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: I disagree. IF the Birthers had any actual evidence that Obama was born elsewhere, the fact that HI says it is legit would become subject to legal inquiry just like any other disputed fact. Until and unless the Birthers ever get something substantial, something outside of speculation and rumor, the BC will be presumed correct. In fact, it is slam dunk evidence at this point.

    Standing is a gating item. You must get past that to even raise the question of document legitimacy.

  70. avatar
    JoZeppy April 4, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Sef: A comment with layers? Mmmmmmmmh!

    An ogre with layers?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZnztwiWZo4&feature=related

  71. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter April 4, 2012 at 4:23 pm #

    Sef: Standing is a gating item. You must get past that to even raise the question of document legitimacy.

    My point was, that IF the “Birth Certificate” Birthers had ever had any evidence, they might have been found to have standing, or prevailed on some other legal issue. Their biggest problem is, and has always been, that they don’t have anything except rumor and speculation and suspicions.

    The “two citizen parents” Birthers, on the other hand, do not have a legal leg to stand on, and never have.

    The BC Birthers have wasted their time in court for over three years, because even if they ever did have a full merits hearing, all it would take is Obama laying a bumpy birth certificate on the court, and it would be game,set,match. Because they don’t have any evidence.

    You would think that if Donald Trump was so convinced that Obama was born elsewhere, he would have offered a reward for anybody who had actual contrary evidence. $5 million is chump change to him, so I wonder why he hasn’t put his money where his mouth is??? After almost 4 years, the lack of Birther evidence is kind of ridiculous and maybe the DIY Birther Lawsuit case designer should have mentioned something about needing a little evidence.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  72. avatar
    Jim April 4, 2012 at 4:31 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: My point was, that IF the “Birth Certificate” Birthers had ever had any evidence, they might have been found to have standing, or prevailed on some other legal issue.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    From all the court cases I’ve seen, they would have still not had standing…even if they had evidence. Standing is the first hurdle that has to be overcome.

  73. avatar
    Ramjomi April 4, 2012 at 4:57 pm #

    Unless the birthers come up with a “real smoking gun” (which they won’t) proving some sort of elaborate conspiracy, this is all a waste of time, money, effort, and bandwidth. Any competent judge at the end of the day will see the Hawaiin birth certificate, the signed statements from Hawaiin officals from BOTH parties stating the birth certificate, then remember something they should have learned in law school:
    “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
    Because really, the birthers are not just accusing the sitting President of fraud, they are accusing the entire state government of Hawaii of fraud, including possible every single governor in the state’s history. Oh wait, I forgot “Vattel, Vattel, Vattel”.

  74. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: My point was, that IF the “Birth Certificate” Birthers had ever had any evidence, they might have been found to have standing

    No!

  75. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 5:50 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: My point was, that IF the “Birth Certificate” Birthers had ever had any evidence, they might have been found to have standing, or prevailed on some other legal issue. Their biggest problem is, and has always been, that they don’t have anything except rumor and speculation and suspicions.

    Standing has nothing to do with evidence. Of course, if they had any evidence, the Government would certainly have ‘standing’ to file criminal charges or at least to start an investigation. But really, there is nothing that indicates that a crime has been committed.

    Orly’s SSN claims are unfounded, the same with the Cold Case Posse… Sigh…

  76. avatar
    Rickey April 4, 2012 at 6:03 pm #

    Jim:
    Swensson v Obama denied by Georgia Supreme Court, if this image is correct

    Powell v. Obama was rejected, as well.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88026967/2012-04-04-SCOGA-POWELL-v-Obama-Petition-Denied

  77. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: IF the “Birth Certificate” Birthers had ever had any evidence,

    If there were real evidence, in the real world, Obama would never have run, because it would have been discovered by the pros working for Hillary and/or the Republicans, whose expertise in ferreting out negative facts about opponents is to Corsi and the CCP as the Yankees are to a Little League team. The idea that Hillary and McCain had verifiable information that Obama was ineligible and decided to lose rather than use it is ludicrous.

  78. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

    Rickey: Powell v. Obama was rejected, as well.

    So is Welden…

    No surprises here…

  79. avatar
    Ramjomi April 4, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Scientist: If there were real evidence, in the real world, Obama would never have run, because it would have been discovered by the pros working for Hillary and/or the Republicans, whose expertise in ferreting out negative facts about opponents is to Corsi and the CCP as the Yankees are to a Little League team. The idea that Hillary and McCain had verifiable information that Obama was ineligible and decided to lose rather than use it is ludicrous.

    Haven’t you heard the new theory? The Obama’s threatened to kill Chelsea Clinton if the Clinton’s released the information that they knew Obama was ineligible. Apparently, Bill (who ironically enough has lied about things before and even was accused by political opponents of killing Vince Foster) told some Hollywood Producer that he knew that Obama was ineligible and now Corsi has picked up on the story. Of course, the reason they never came forward was because of the threat on Chelsea. I am sure Sheriff Joe will be around in a bit to give his expert opinion on this murderous twist. At some point an Martian is going to be involved, it is the only fitting ending.

  80. avatar
    Mr. Spock April 4, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

    Jim:
    Really, they ought to give up on the Kenya birth.Everybody knows the President is an illegal alien from Vulcan.

    http://www.universetoday.com/94432/obama-and-uhura-go-vulcan/

    Not according to my information, Captain.

  81. avatar
    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter April 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

    nbc: Standing has nothing to do with evidence. Of course, if they had any evidence, the Government would certainly have standing’ to file criminal charges or at least to start an investigation. But really, there is nothing that indicates that a crime has been committed.

    Orly’s SSN claims are unfounded, the same with the Cold Case Posse… Sigh…

    I think “evidence” does have a little something to do with standing, in the wiggle room area. “Standing” is not a fact-independent test or concept. Therefore, one can not say that “Birthers have no standing and never will” —that is way too broad a statement.

    Under the current three part standing test, they have failed to meet their burden. But what constitutes a “harm” or “injury” is not a bright line test. That is something judges have to figure out and decide about.

    Sooo, assume you are a judge and a Birther sues, saying he has been harmed by having an illegal President, and has no proof whatsoever that the President is illegal beyond a seance he attended at Laguna Niguel. Since part of the harm is the underlying “illegality”, and that “illegality” doesn’t exist, then you have an easy job. You tell the Birther he has no standing, please leave your court, and “No, he/she doesn’t get to “Feenish.”

    Now assume the same case, and this time the Birther has a genuine looking document, and records showing that Obama was born in Vancouver, along with copies of paid checks from Grandpa Dunham to Vancouver General Maternity Ward, with “Lil Barry” on the “what for” line, photographs of two Mounties standing by Stanley and her new born child, and current affidavits from the two Mounties who swear they found her in labor in traffic and rode her on their horses to the hospital just in the nick of time.

    I submit that as a judge, there is more of a chance that you will find particularized harm, especially if the Plaintiff is a candidate like Keyes, or whoever the criminal in Georgia is..

    Here is a link to a 2011 law review article which shows the development of “standing” and some of the ins and outs:

    http://lawreview.law.lsu.edu/issues/articles/summers-v-earth-island-institute-overhauling-the-injury-in-fact-test-for-standing-to-sue/

    Plus, when you are arguing with Birthers at WND, which works better:

    1. You lose in court because you can not meet the 3 part Lujan test for standing.

    or

    2. You lose in court because you are stupid idiots who don’t have a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  82. avatar
    Sef April 4, 2012 at 7:31 pm #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: Now assume the same case, and this time the Birther has a genuine looking document, and records showing that Obama was born in Vancouver, along with copies of paid checks from Grandpa Dunham to Vancouver General Maternity Ward, with “Lil Barry” on the “what for” line, photographs of two Mounties standing by Stanley and her new born child, and current affidavits from the two Mounties who swear they found her in labor in traffic and rode her on their horses to the hospital just in the nick of time.

    IF you have standing, THEN the “documents” can be looked at. What part of “gating item” don’t you understand?

  83. avatar
    Bob April 4, 2012 at 7:41 pm #

    Ramjomi: the birthers are not just accusing the sitting President of fraud, they are accusing the entire state government of Hawaii of fraud

    . . .

    Exactly!

    If the Birthers were sincere their beef would be with the state of Hawaii and not with Obama.

    Birtherism is knee-jerk agitprop.

  84. avatar
    JPotter April 4, 2012 at 9:20 pm #

    Ramjomi: Apparently, Bill (who ironically enough has lied about things before and even was accused by political opponents of killing Vince Foster) told some Hollywood Producer that he knew that Obama was ineligible and now Corsi has picked up on the story.

    Did said producer claim Clinton told her this while in bed? I hope so. I expect my sleaze nuts to be consistent.

  85. avatar
    Ramjomi April 4, 2012 at 9:35 pm #

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/

    Here you go, Jerome’s latest hits.

  86. avatar
    G April 4, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    *yawn*

    You can tell that the WND smear machine is getting really desperate to find a new “Swift Boat” angle they can use, when they have to resort to trotting out moldy claims from the EPIC FAIL disgruntled movement known as the PUMAs. All these tired old chestnuts crashed and burned miserably in 2008… how pathetic can they be to think this lame angle would somehow be more successful this time around.

    Plus they’ve added the whole whiff of “Vince Foster murder” bogeyman smears, with ever increasing claims of Clinton supporters being threatened or murdered. They really are digging deep into old failed tropes now…

    And they try to put a twist and claim that the Clinton’s were the original Birthers. Sorry, no. Just the same small pathetic contingent of inconsequential and disgruntled PUMAs…

    *rolls eyes*

    Ramjomi: http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/hillary-supporters-untold-obama-horror-stories/Here you go, Jerome’s latest hits.

  87. avatar
    J. Potter April 4, 2012 at 10:06 pm #

    Waiting for PUMAra Zebest, the “Adobe expert” to chime in any second now as a victim of O’s thugs …. 😉

  88. avatar
    nbc April 4, 2012 at 11:30 pm #

    She may consider herself to be an expert but her actual work in this instance shows a bit of a lack of familiarity with relevant issues.

    When I found out that she was actually a PUMA, everything suddenly made so much more sense.

  89. avatar
    The Magic M April 5, 2012 at 5:30 am #

    Tarrant: For those laws they say wre signed by him that were also passed by Congress, they can challenge the law directly. Purpura v Sebilius tried the “Attack laws via eligibility” tack and was rebuffed by the Supreme Court.

    But I think the problem with their case was that they did not even claim personal injury, let alone a particularized one. So they practically invited the “no standing” rejection. Then again, it shows the amazing birther incompetence that they couldn’t even find a plaintiff who could’ve shown how Obamacare directly affected him (Fitzpatrick might have been a candidate ;)).

  90. avatar
    Horus April 5, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    This is just a silly question to do with the Arizona, Candidate Nomination Paper.

    If it was November 31 when Obama signed it, why did it take 2 weeks(12/13/2007) for it to be Received and stamped by the Secretary of State?

    I’ll remind you that at that time Jan Brewer was the Secretary of State.

  91. avatar
    nbc April 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

    Horus: If it was November 31 when Obama signed it, why did it take 2 weeks(12/13/2007) for it to be Received and stamped by the Secretary of State?

    From ARS 16-242(B)

    B. The nomination paper shall be filed not less than fifty days nor more than seventy days before the presidential preference election and not later than 5:00 p.m. on the last day for filing.

    The President signed in Virginia before a Notary and then the form made its way to the SOS. I find 2 weeks to be nothing mysterious.

  92. avatar
    Northland10 April 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm #

    nbc: The President signed in Virginia before a Notary and then the form made its way to the SOS. I find 2 weeks to be nothing mysterious.

    Especially mailing something December along with the most beloved bureaucratic steps required on both ends to seal and send, receive, place in the inbox, to the process box, to the outbox, to the in box, to the lose box, to the found box, eventually to the SoS box and then to the stamping box and then…

  93. avatar
    clestes April 5, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    Squeeky I think we are saying the same thing here. I get your point that the birthers have no evidence because it would have come out before now and they MIGHT have got standing, but that “peice of paper” his BC is more than a piece of paper. It is legal document.

    Of course, birthers aren’t going to understand what happened with the HI Dept of Health certified it, but we do. It is no longer just paper. It is the word, backed up by the power of her position, backed up by the governor of HI.

    That is the sticking point and always be. That is why all other issues are none issues. And that is why I am 100% confident that no state or federal judge is going to rule any other way than he is a NBC.

    Sure standing is a problem for them, a big one. And before the issue of whether the BC can even be brought before the court standing has to be resolved.

    But the knife in the heart of any case is gong to be the BC.

    And once he is re-elected, I think we are going to see a drop off of these cases. Right now there are several dozens trying to keep him off the ballot. Once he is re-elected all that goes away. And these birther cases are going to to go away too.

  94. avatar
    Ramjomi April 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm #

    Majority Will: Immediate family is under Secret Service protection. Remember the SNL skit with Laraine Newman as Amy Carter in school with agents protecting her from bullies?Chelsea was code name Energy. Amy was Dynamo.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Service_codename)

    Not quite Will as far as ex-Presidents are concerned. With ex-Presidents only the President themself and the spouse are under protection. While in office, yes the kids also receive protection, but not after.

    However, this fact doesn’t makes the birther claims any less absurd. For one, I am sure if the Clintons had alerted the Secret Service or any authorities that Chelsea would have been under some sort of protection, whether it was Secret Servie or FBI. The President does have the authority to give Secret Service protection to others, and I am sure GW Bush would have surely given it to Chelsea (because he is a dad himself). Secondly, if there had been a threat, I am sure the Clintons would have alerted the authorities and not been afraid of alerting the authority. Thirdly, don’t these conspiracy nuts also believe that Clinton killed Vince Foster. In their worldview, since when did old Bill decide to become a wimp?. Really, if you are to believe any of this stuff, a bloodbath should have ensued, since both the Clintons and Obamas have “proven” to be ruthless killers. Finally, this is just plain nuts.

  95. avatar
    Majority Will April 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm #

    Ramjomi: Not quite Will as far as ex-Presidents are concerned.With ex-Presidents only the President themself and the spouse are under protection.While in office, yes the kids also receive protection, but not after.

    However, this fact doesn’t makes the birther claims any less absurd.For one, I am sure if the Clintons had alerted the Secret Service or any authorities that Chelsea would have been under some sort of protection, whether it was Secret Servie or FBI.The President does have the authority to give Secret Service protection to others, and I am sure GW Bush would have surely given it to Chelsea (because he is a dad himself).Secondly, if there had been a threat, I am sure the Clintons would have alerted the authorities an

    d not been afraid of alerting the authority.Thirdly, don’t these conspiracy nuts also believe that Clinton killed Vince Foster.In their worldview, since when did old Bill decide to become a wimp?.Really, if you are to believe any of this stuff, a bloodbath should have ensued, since both the Clintons and Obamas have “proven” to be ruthless killers.Finally, this is just plain nuts.

    That’s why I used the verb “was” as in Chelsea was code name Energy and Amy was Dynamo.

    Malia is Radiance. Sasha is Rosebud. Verbs matter. ; )

  96. avatar
    Keith April 5, 2012 at 9:36 pm #

    clestes: And once he is re-elected, I think we are going to see a drop off of these cases. Right now there are several dozens trying to keep him off the ballot. Once he is re-elected all that goes away. And these birther cases are going to to go away too.

    Your argument is not without merit, however I think you are missing the larger picture.

    The guys behind the curtain aren’t really interested in Obama, per se. They have an end game for which the birther movement is just the opening move. They are, IMO, after much bigger fish: they want a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the 2 citizen parent (2CP) requirement. Not to make Obama ineligible, but to cut off the ‘anchor baby’ issue.

    That won’t happen for years of course, that is why using the Obama situation to get the 2CP idea into the mind of the electorate is just the opening move. That is why they are so desperate for the MSM to give them coverage, any kind of coverage. I sometimes think even ‘obscure’ blogs like this one (sorry Doc) are giving them too much credit.

    Because after the birthers have been beaten into submission over Obama’s eligibility, their next move will probably be along the lines of “OK the 2CP has been has been thoroughly discredited. Maybe we should take another look at that.” And the former birther legislators, and border state Governors, and vexatious lawyers will start getting pressure (campaign contributions) to talk up Constitutional amendment. Some have already discussed calling a Constitutional Convention over the issue. And you can be sure that WND will take up the baton over the issue as well.

    This birther FUD campaign is only the opening move in a much larger ‘conspiracy’ to overturn jus soli citizenship in order disenfranchise thousands of Natural Born Citizens who happen to have the bad luck to be born to parents that don’t have propert immigration documentation.

  97. avatar
    clestes April 6, 2012 at 11:34 am #

    Keith,

    Yes, I was not looking at the longer picture, but I wouldn’t bet a nickel on it being successful.

    The only people caught up in the “anchor” baby issue are an ever shrinking demographic that fears the coming of the white minority. Several thoughts on that.
    1 is precedent. They are going up against more than 100 years of precedent on what defines a NBC.

    2. As you stated it would take years to happen and in those intervening years Baggers and birthers are going to die off and be replaced by a citizenry that does not care. You know any Millinuiums? Ask them what they think about the NBC rule and they will tell you, leave it alone.

    3. Today’s Supreme Court is the worst since FDR’s time and if the president is re-elected it can be hoped that he will have a chance to appoint more judges. It is the conservative side of the court that is older, except for Ms. Gingsing and she will be replaced with another liberal justice.

    4. With this election, the Baggers are going to lose seats. Not all of them, but enough that they will lose power. In fact, republicans are going lose seats across the board. Not just the Whitehouse. Will they lose enough to lose the House, maybe, but I do know that they will not have the number they have now. I fully expect the senate to remain in democratic hands. The republican candidates are being forced to take stands that are very unpopular with Americans in general.

  98. avatar
    Adrien Nash April 7, 2012 at 6:18 am #

    Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter: “Their biggest problem is, and has always been, that they don’t have anything except rumor and speculation and suspicions.”
    Wow, is that ever a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What you’ve actually done is paint a picture that describes what the White House has fostered in place of proof. All they’ve given is a digital image that only exists in the cyber realm and which floats on speculation and suspicion that it might be legitimate when there is no proof whatsoever that it is genuine.

    “The “two citizen parents” Birthers, on the other hand, do not have a legal leg to stand on, and never have. ”
    You’ve nailed that one. But failed to grasp that you’ve destroyed your own case. Natural citizenship is not based on any legal legs. In fact there is no federal law or constitutional clause by which children born in the sovereign States of the American union forged together by the Constitution possessed citizenship. All citizenship was firstly a State issue, and secondarily a federal issue. Natural citizens did not and do not need any law to provide them legal citizenship, and no such law exists. No one can name one. The 14th Amendment covered freed slaves and children of immigrants, -not natural citizens, not the children of natives of the United States, and as such it is irrelevant to the issue. All that’s relevant is what was what when the Constitution was written. read: WHY NO “NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN” IS ELIGIBLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/no-native-born-citizen-is-eligible-to-be-president.pdf

    Why does everyone overlook facts that we modern, civilized, politically correct citizens don’t have on our radar? Like the fact that women were not eligible to be President! Where is that prohibition in the Constitution? Please point it out to me. That fact disenfranchised half of the population and yet not a single word was said about it. Why? Because it was understood to be so by all. Just as it was understood that only men of 35 years of age who had resided in the U.S. for 14 years of their life, and who were born to American citizens could be the Commander-in-Chief of the American military forces.

    It is legitimate to mock the “2 citizen parents” line because it’s redundant. The “2” is superfluous. The president needed to be born to an American father. The mother was irrelevant because of “naturalization by marriage” which made any foreign bride a United States citizen upon the signing of the marriage certificate.

    “The BC Birthers have wasted their time in court for over three years, because even if they ever did have a full merits hearing, all it would take is Obama laying a bumpy birth certificate on the court, and it would be game,set,match. Because they don’t have any evidence.”
    That’s totally backwards. Obama can’t present a birth certificate in court because one does not exist. Only an image of an abstract representation of the supposed information gleaned digitally from a micro-film photo. One can’t present a digital image in court. As for presenting an embossed and signed hard-copy, that can’t happen because if it could, it would have been shown to the public already, including at least one person who would know a fake from the real deal. That hasn’t happened and never will and never can.

    Even if Obama had the best forger in the world, the problem is that Hawaii doesn’t issue TRUE COPYs of their micro-film images, -in the modern digital age they only issue abstract copies, and abstracts are not a true representation of a real document. And they can’t be certified as being such. All they do is convey information but it can’t be authenticated as being a true representation of the original because it is a digital manipulation and not a capture. Also, and worse, the signature stamp and embossing stamps are modern day fakes also. The stamp is just another digital image, and the embossing is done by a machine using little protrusions instead of a solid metal die. And that machine is in violation of Hawaiian law because it produces a debossed image instead of the required embossed image. But Hawaii doesn’t have anyone to care about such legalities.

    “You would think that if Donald Trump was so convinced that Obama was born elsewhere, he would have offered a reward for anybody who had actual contrary evidence…maybe the DIY Birther Lawsuit case designer should have mentioned something about needing a little evidence.”
    The evidence problem cuts both ways. There is a highly suspicious absence of evidence in support of a Hawaiian birth, including such things as the mother of the Nordyke twins, an Obama supporter, who never saw Ann Dunham nor her mulatto baby even though they would have spent about a week together in the maternity ward if Jr. had been born there. The paucity of normal evidence of birth location raises suspicion that the whole scenario is false, and if that is true, then all evidence to the contrary must be made to disappear and therefore finding it is almost impossible. So a reward for what has been hidden, buried, or destroyed, is a reward that is meaningless.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  99. avatar
    Travel April 7, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Not really true, but regardless that is more than any other president in history.

    Adrien Nash: All they’ve given is a digital image that only exists in the cyber realm and which floats on speculation and suspicion that it might be legitimate when there is no proof whatsoever that it is genuine.

  100. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Travel:
    Not really true, but regardless that is more than any other president in history.

    Adrien’s posts are always great examples of delusional, bigoted, asinine, lie based birtherism.

  101. avatar
    Paper April 7, 2012 at 8:25 am #

    Sorry, but women couldn’t vote, thank you very much.

    In the meantime, I refer you to Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for president in 1872, before women could vote. Lots of words were said over the centuries on the issue, despite your suggestion otherwise.

    Here is the complete list (three before women could vote):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

    Anticipating your possible response that this was nonetheless after the Civil War, I add: Exactly!

    Adrien Nash: Why does everyone overlook facts that we modern, civilized, politically correct citizens don’t have on our radar? Like the fact that women were not eligible to be President! Where is that prohibition in the Constitution? Please point it out to me. That fact disenfranchised half of the population and yet not a single word was said about it. Why?

  102. avatar
    JD Reed April 7, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    Adrienne Nash, a good thing that you don’t take the same attitutde towards poisonous snakes that you do about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Else one could slither up your trousers leg and you’d be standing there insisting that this particular serpent does not exist. Why are you in such denial? The World Nut Daily’s own journalist saw the paper document. Other reporters saw it and handled it, and one took a picture. The Hawaii Department of Health has repeatedly verified its existence. The two Honolulu daillies pinnted notices of the infant Barack Obama’s birth a few days after the event.
    “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

  103. avatar
    Majority Will April 7, 2012 at 9:32 am #

    JD Reed:
    Adrienne Nash,a good thing that you don’t take the same attitutde towards poisonous snakes that you do about Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Else one could slither up your trousers leg and you’d be standing there insisting that this particular serpent does not exist. Why are you in such denial? The World Nut Daily’s own journalist saw the paper document. Other reporters saw it and handled it, and one took a picture. The Hawaii Department of Health has repeatedly verified its existence. The two Honolulu daillies pinnted notices of the infant Barack Obama’s birth a few days after the event.
    “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

    The clues to some reasons for birtherism are probably outlined in the DSM-IV-TR.

  104. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2012 at 9:51 am #

    Paper:
    Sorry, but women couldn’t vote, thank you very much.

    In the meantime, I refer you to Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for president in 1872, before women could vote.Lots of words were said over the centuries on the issue, despite your suggestion otherwise.

    Here is the complete list (three before women could vote):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

    Anticipating your possible response that this was nonetheless after the Civil War, I add:Exactly!

    I hadn’t known about Gracie Allen’s Presidential run until that list. Brings back fond memories of GB & GA. And B&W TV. And snow on TV.

  105. avatar
    Northland10 April 7, 2012 at 9:59 am #

    Adrien Nash: Like the fact that women were not eligible to be President! Where is that prohibition in the Constitution? Please point it out to me. That fact disenfranchised half of the population and yet not a single word was said about it. Why? Because it was understood to be so by all.

    And everybody understood that witches float. So why do we not throw them in the lake now? The 1650s called, and, unfortunately for us, they said they don’t want you back.

  106. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm #

    Keith: The guys behind the curtain aren’t really interested in Obama, per se. They have an end game for which the birther movement is just the opening move. They are, IMO, after much bigger fish: they want a Constitutional Amendment to enshrine the 2 citizen parent (2CP) requirement. Not to make Obama ineligible, but to cut off the anchor baby’ issue.

    I don’t know whether the bigwigs are interested in Obama, but there have been recent attempts to wiggle out of birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 both died in committee, but the OpenCongress Summary must really irritate the birther crowd.

    “This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.”
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show

  107. avatar
    Rickey April 7, 2012 at 12:34 pm #

    Paper:

    In the meantime, I refer you to Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for president in 1872, before women could vote.Lots of words were said over the centuries on the issue, despite your suggestion otherwise.

    It never fails to amuse me when birthers who claim to be defending the Constitution invariably reveal how little of its contents they actually know.

  108. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm #

    Linda: I don’t know whether the bigwigs are interested in Obama, but there have been recent attempts to wiggle out of birthright citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act.The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 and The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 both died in committee, but the OpenCongress Summary must really irritate the birther crowd.

    “This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.”
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show

    But there’s that little thing called the 14th Amendment. They would have to say that such people are not under jurisdiction to make this valid. That, of course, would mean that illegal aliens could not be prosecuted for crimes. They just do not think these things through.

  109. avatar
    JD Reed April 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm #

    John, you’ve obviously never learned the difference in value between verifiable facts and pure conjecture or just made-up barnyard waste. You exhibit a strong taste for the latter.

  110. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm #

    Keith: Which side is the Hatfields and which the McCoys? Or is it Earp/Clanton?

    Careful! Some of us still have relatives of those clans.

  111. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    J. Potter: Everyone knows Ahnuld is an immigrant, has been known for decades.

    Was he asked to show his naturalization certificate when he he ran for governor?

  112. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm #

    Sef: But there’s that little thing called the 14th Amendment.

    Yes, they tried to get around that by inserting the following text, but I don’t see how that would work. They would have to revise the Amendment itself.

    “(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is–

    (1) a citizen or national of the United States;
    (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
    (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.”
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/text

  113. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 4:00 pm #

    J. Potter: Hell, what about everyone?

    You are right, of course. I have read the corollary to the Clinton-threat theory is that Obama and McCain had a quid pro quo not to expose each other’s issues. As if in “conspiracyland” only Obama, McCain and the Clintons knew this double secret super spy intel and how it would actually affect their eligibility under the triple secret, only dogs can hear, true reading of the Constitution.

    It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

  114. avatar
    Sef April 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm #

    Linda: Yes, they tried to get around that by inserting the following text, but I don’t see how that would work. They would have to revise the Amendment itself.

    “(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is–

    (1) a citizen or national of the United States;
    (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
    (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.”
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/text

    As I said, the instant that law would go into effect, any illegal alien could commit any crime in the U.S. with impunity. Idiotic racists!

  115. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2012 at 9:07 pm #

    Linda: “This bill would eliminate birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Current U.S. law automatically recognizes any person born on American soil as a natural born citizen.”

    Congress cannot use a mere law cannot take away the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen.

    Sef: But there’s that little thing called the 14th Amendment. They would have to say that such people are not under jurisdiction to make this valid. That, of course, would mean that illegal aliens could not be prosecuted for crimes. They just do not think these things through.

    Exactly. They need an amendment.

  116. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 9:13 pm #

    Keith: Congress cannot use a mere law cannot take away the citizenship of a Natural Born Citizen.

    That quote was the OpenCongress Summary. Had wording that said in effect it was not retroactive, not trying to take away existing citizenship. Still, I agree, if they want to set new limits on who may have birthright citizenship, they would have to go the amendment route.

  117. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Oops. The bill had wording that said….

  118. avatar
    Linda April 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Jerry Collette: We can argue these thing here and elsewhere until the cows come home and it won’t matter. Only what the courts say does.

    Mr. Collette, I find that phrasing disingenuous at best. The courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for the office of president. Which court will you believe? What would they have to say?

  119. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm #

    Sef: Careful! Some of us still have relatives of those clans.

    The Hatfields and the McCoys have signed an official truce. They are proud of their history and actively promote tourism in the Tug Valley.

    Not sure about the Earp/Clanton feud though. The Earp’s left Arizona altogether. Wyatt went to Alaska and the California desert. He died in Los Angeles.

    The Clanton’s moved around a lot too. It is possible that some descendants are still in Southern Arizona/ New Mexico. I’m pretty sure the Clantons have not reconciled with the Earps. There are several websites dedicated to telling their side of the dispute.

  120. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm #

    Linda:
    Oops.The bill had wording that said….

    Not to worry. My post wasn’t exactly the model of clarity is word usage either.

  121. avatar
    Keith April 7, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    Oops. clarity in word usage.

    See what I mean?

  122. avatar
    Rickey April 7, 2012 at 11:05 pm #

    Sef: As I said, the instant that law would go into effect, any illegal alien could commit any crime in the U.S. with impunity.

    Arguably they wouldn’t even be illegal aliens anymore!

  123. avatar
    Majority Will April 8, 2012 at 6:56 am #

    Linda: Mr. Collette, I find that phrasing disingenuous at best.The courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for the office of president.Which court will you believe?What would they have to say?

    Honest birther is an oxymoron.

  124. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 8, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Majority Will: Honest birther is an oxymoron.

    Birther is moron.
    Limbaugh is oxymoron.

  125. avatar
    Period period April 8, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Honest is the period.

    Thomas Brown: Birther is moron.
    Limbaugh is oxymoron.

  126. avatar
    Period period April 8, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Yes, “amusement.” That’s the word I was looking for! ;-}

    Rickey: It never fails to amuse me when birthers who claim to be defending the Constitution invariably reveal how little of its contents they actually know.

  127. avatar
    Period period April 8, 2012 at 11:57 am #

    Amusing is the “honest” birther, periodically oxygenated. (Translation: Birthers need lots of fresh air. Air fresheners don’t work.)

  128. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 9, 2012 at 8:39 am #

    On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real.
     
    On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case.
     
    To my knowledge, no court has yet done either.
     
    Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?
     

    Linda: Mr. Collette, I find that phrasing disingenuous at best.The courts have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for the office of president.Which court will you believe?What would they have to say?

  129. avatar
    JD Reed April 9, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Jerry Collette, how many times does saomeone have to tell you that the state of Hawaii has issued certified copies of Mr. Obama’s birth records. Unless you dive deep down the rabbit hole of conspiracy and believe the Dept. of Health there is fomenting fraud, you don’t have any reason not to accept the authenticity of the documents.
    As to the history of constitutioin’s nstural born requirement, it has been analayzed to a fare-thee-well on this site as well as elsewhere. You birthers claim that the constitution requires something that there is nothing in the language of the document to support — Vattelism — and that the Minor case defined the status of anyone born here of non-citizen parents (not invading soldiers or diplomats) when the language of that case explicitly declines to do exactly that.
    So your case fails on both counts.

  130. avatar
    Majority Will April 9, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    “Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?”

    Why are birthers such illogical and obstinate question beggars?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

  131. avatar
    JPotter April 9, 2012 at 9:42 am #

    Jerry Collette: To my knowledge, no court has yet done either.

    Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    As for me, I say examine away. Put’em in the Nat’l Archives right next to the Constitution.

    The President’s position on the matter, which I find very understandable, is that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists.* No court has found reasonable cause or grounds to request the documents. Good luck with that.

    Did you miss the hearing in which a couple birther plaintifs submitted the PDF (the PDF!) of the LFBC and attested it was genuine, so they could get their Vattelist grove on? Birthers are on record saying it’s the real deal. Are you not all of one mind, one accord?

    ________

    * A Reagan-era policy that Reagan wasn’t so good at. Obama has done quite a bit better. Ask the Somali pirates for references.

  132. avatar
    Keith April 9, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real.

    That is exactly why Vital Statistics departments exist in every State and Territory: so courts don’t have to go diving down that plug hole all the time.

    NOBODY but the authorized custodians of those original documents ever get to see them for any reason what-so-ever. Not a court, not the person mentioned, not you, not me, not anybody. The closest anyone will ever get is a certified copy.

    That is what certification is for: to ensure the copy is a ‘true copy’ of the original document. The original document must remain under the protection of the vital statistics department to ensure its integrity.

    On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case.

    That is exactly what the Wong Kim Ark case did: thoroughly analyze the 400+ years of law on the subject. And the ruling is not dicta, it is precedence and settled law for 100 years. There is no need to keep retrying the Wong Kim Ark issues every few years; the Supremes got it right in the first place.

    To my knowledge, no court has yet done either.

    No court will ever get near the original document in the Hawai’ian DoH vaults. Several Courts or Administrative Tribunals have viewed an uncertified image of the Birth Certificate. The court in the Ankeny case may well have seen a certified copy, I don’t know. Every court that has seen it has determined that it is valid.

    The Court in the Wong Kim Ark case did all the research. It is settled law for over 100 years: a child born an American soil and under the jurisdiction of the American legal system, is a Natural Born Citizen and the citizenship status of the parents do not affect that in anyway no matter what.

    Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    Nobody is afraid of it. It just isn’t necessary to waste time on nonsense like this. Furthermore it is not the job of the Courts to judge Presidential eligibility questions. That is the responsibility of Congress and Congress alone.

  133. avatar
    Majority Will April 9, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Jerry Collette:
    On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a . . .

    Pardon my reality and history based skepticism, but there is nothing that will convince you.

    Nothing. Ever. Someone who doesn’t ask honest questions has no interest in honest answers.

  134. avatar
    Judge Mental April 9, 2012 at 10:55 am #

    Jerry Collette: On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real. On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case. To my knowledge, no court has yet done either. Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    When you say the “original” birth documents do you mean the documents currently in Obama’s personal possession ie the certified copy birth certificate (COLB) routinely issued by Hawaii in 2007 and the certified copy birth certificate (“long form”) issued by Hawaii in 2011 at the special request of Obama? Or do you mean the original documents/records housed in the Hawaii Vital Records Dept?

  135. avatar
    Rickey April 9, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    Jerry Collette:

    On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case.

    Please cite, at a minimum, one Constitutional law text, one civics text, or one history text which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents.

    For the past three years I have been asking birthers to identify such a textbook, and I am still waiting.

    And if the supposed two-citizen parent requirement actually exists, why did Jerome Corsi fail to mention it in his book The Obama Nation? When he wrote it he knew that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, yet with a PhD. in political science from Harvard he didn’t realize that this disqualified Obama from being President? How did he miss that?

  136. avatar
    JoZeppy April 9, 2012 at 11:50 am #

    Jerry Collette: On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real. On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case. To my knowledge, no court has yet done either. Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    Which shows you don’t have the first clue what courts do. They are not in the business of examining documents. Courts don’t do that. They certainly are not in the business of second guessing the statements of official custodians of state records. The custodian of the state records has said that the President was born in Hawaii. The State of Hawaii has publicly posted the index data on the President’s birth in Hawaii. And if there ever was a court case that needed to make a final determination, a certifed copy, even the short form, would all the court would need to make that determination. Courts are not in the business of forensic document examination.

    On the question of natural born citizenship…unless you give a court a reason to question the rationale in WKA, they aren’t going to examine the 400+ year legal history on the subject. WKA already did that for them. Until you can show that WKA is wrong in its examination of the history of NBC, the courts will continue to follow WKA. Again, that is how the courts work. Courts don’t examine a legal issue de novo every time it comes before them. If you can show that the rationale is wrong, the will re-examine it. They do this regularly. Until then, they will continue to rely on WKA. You see, no birther has provided a serious argument to challenge WKA. When your arguments are being labeled as frivolous, that’s a good clue. A good start might be actually abandoning the absolutely wrong idea the Minor even tried to define NBC, and accepting that WKA represents the law. Then try to find some way to attack the definition as defined in WKA. Problem for you is WKA was actually correctly decided, and both history and the law are against you.

    Just because you can’t accept reality, or don’t care how the law works isn’t an issue of us being “afraid” of the courts doing anything in particular. It is a matter of us living in reality, knowing what the law is and how the courts work, and simply telling you how it is. You confuse being “afraid” with informing you of what reality is.

  137. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 9, 2012 at 12:36 pm #

    Jerry Collette:
    On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real.

    On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case.

    To my knowledge, no court has yet done either.

    Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    We’re actually not afraid of it happening. We just don’t think it’ll solve anything and it won’t convince you. In your scenario, this is exactly what would happen: 1. Obama presents the COLB that has been out on the internet for the last 4 years. 2. Judge asks birthers if they have any information that it’s false. 3. Judge rejects birther information, and declares that Obama was born in the United States. 4. Birthers start screaming about corrupt judge not actually understanding the law.

    We saw this happen time and time again. First, it was “If Obama would just release his birth certificate, it would all go away.” So, Obama released his birth certificate, let reporters handle and photograph it. He also scanned it in and let the general public view his birth certificate on their own, placing it in the way it would get out to the most people. Birthers screamed that it wasn’t a real birth certificate (a lie), that it actually proved nothing (another lie), and that it didn’t matter anyways since he was ineligible because of his father (a third lie).

    They then started screaming that it would all go away if Obama would just release his long-form birth certificate. So, a year ago, Obama wrote to the Hawaii Department of Health to get them to make an exception and release a document that the Hawaii Department of Health generally doesn’t release anymore (it is much cheaper and faster to just print something off of a database rather than hire someone to go searching around the archives, find the birth certificate, and then make a copy). They submitted affidavits that they were there when it was copied and said again that it was a true copy of the file in the Hawaii Department of Health. He then held a press conference where he allowed any reporter who wanted to hold his birth certificate, and take photographs of it. He copied and handed out photocopies to each reporter, and then scanned it and put it on the White House Website so that the general public could view it. Birthers screamed (even before they saw the document) that it was a forgery, that anybody could actually get one, and that he was ineligible anyways because of his father.

    Now, birthers are screaming that if they were just there at the copying, this entire thing goes away. Nevermind that they’ll never be granted this request as nobody except for Hawaii Department of Health Employees are actually allowed down in the vault (for any birth certificate). Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. Why should we again give the Birthers what they want, and then expect them to act in a way that’s completely contrary to the way that they’ve been behaving for the last 4 years?

    Now, as far as your novel theories, the courts have rejected them time and time again, especially in regards to Barack Obama. The Appeals Court in Indiana (Ankeny v. Daniels) blatently rejected your theory of that. So did the Virginia Court (Tisdale case). In fact, every court that has ruled on your theory blatently rejected it. And yet, you say that it’s the truth and the courts are corrupt. The Wong Kim Ark Case is the controlling case law on what constitutes Citizenship. Any court is going to go by that case.

    You just happen to be results oriented. The only ruling that you will accept is one that conforms to your pre-concieved notions that have no actual basis in U.S. Law.

  138. avatar
    aarrgghh April 9, 2012 at 1:34 pm #

    dunstvangeet: [jerry collette] just happen to be results oriented.The only ruling that you will accept is one that conforms to your pre-concieved notions that have no actual basis in U.S. Law.

    after four years it is clear that the only ruling birfers will accept is the ruling that deposes obama. they have zero credibility left when setting any of their goalposts. four years and birfers are still trying to figure out how to keep charlie brown from scoring another field goal.

  139. avatar
    Thrifty April 9, 2012 at 2:35 pm #

    What did Einstein say about the practice of rolling dice as it pertains to insanity?

    dunstvangeet: Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and expecting a different result.

  140. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm #

    Thrifty:
    What did Einstein say about the practice of rolling dice as it pertains to insanity?

    If you were to start the exact same dice in exactly the same place, roll them on exactly the same table, and roll them the exact same way, then they would always land on exactly the same number. Simple physics. Our standard of rolling dice isn’t doing the same thing. Ultimately, we are doing something different in the position of the dice, rolling them slightly different. Then of course, there’s air currents that might affect the dice just slightly differently from one moment to the next.

    You get my point.

  141. avatar
    JPotter April 9, 2012 at 3:13 pm #

    Thrifty: What did Einstein say about the practice of rolling dice as it pertains to insanity?

    He objected to the randomness of quantum mechanics by asserting that God does not roll dice. I’d say that obsessively attempting to replicate die rolls is insanity!

    Here’s another good Einsteinism, uttered as a critique of birtherism—er, quantum mechanics, in 1926:

    Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.

  142. avatar
    Linda April 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm #

    Jerry Collette: On the birth certificate issue, I’d believe a court that examined the original birth documents, not some internet copies that may or may not be real.

    On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case.

    To my knowledge, no court has yet done either.

    Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    Mr. Collette, there is no fear, only frustration and amusement to a varying degree.

    There have been over 100 birther court cases, birthers have lost ALL of them.
    There have been over 50 appeals, the birthers have lost all of them.
    There have been over 15 applications by birthers to the SCOTUS, the Court has denied ALL of them.

    Even if there were a problem with Obama’s eligibility (and there is not) on Congress has jurisdiction, per paragraph 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution:

    “3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    You should also check the “Birther String Cites” which lists, in addition to the Obama-related cases, about a dozen or so other cases where the courts have ruled that children of foreigners born in the US are natural born citizens. There is a link to it here under “Docket” at the top of the page.

    What do you have in support of your opinion?

  143. avatar
    Sef April 9, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Simple Newtonian physics.

    FIFY

  144. avatar
    ballantine April 9, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

    Jerry Collette: On the natural born citizen issue, I’d believe a court that thoroughly analyzed the 400+ years of law on the subject, rather than jumping on dicta from the Wong Ark Kim case. To my knowledge, no court has yet done either. Why are so many anti-birthers so afraid of having either happen?

    And that is because you don’t know very much. Why would you call Wong Kim Ark discussion dicta? You clearly have no idea what that means. Indeed, anyone claiming Minor is precedent and Wong Kim ark is dicta would be laughed out of court, which is what has happened in the courts that have addressed the issue. I continues to amaze me why people with no understanding of law pretend to be experts on the internet. It is sad that there are uneducated people who can’t understand that the Supreme Court did examine 400 years of the law going back to Calvin’s Case citing every legal giant on both side of the Atlantic. Why should they do it again? Because you don’t understand what the Court and these authorities said. I guess you can keep insisting you are right and 400 years of legal authority is wrong, but really no one cares. I have yet to see you say something correct about law yet. Keep trying, you might get lucky one day.

  145. avatar
    Jerry Collette April 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm #

    Linda: Mr. Collette, there is no fear, only frustration and amusement to a varying degree.

    There have been over 100 birther court cases, birthers have lost ALL of them.
    There have been over 50 appeals, the birthers have lost all of them.
    There have been over 15 applications by birthers to the SCOTUS, the Court has denied ALL of them.

    And not a single one of them viewed the original docs. Most of them didn’t even rule on the merits. You asked what it would take. As I said, none of those 100+ cases met that. I contend that many antibirthers are afraid to have the original docs be made public.

    Even if there were a problem with Obama’s eligibility (and there is not) on Congress has jurisdiction, per paragraph 3 of the 20th Amendment to the Constitution:

    “3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    Show me where in that paragraph that says that Congress or anybody else determines who is qualified. As I read it, it merely provides for a procedure if somebody does not.

    You should also check the “Birther String Cites” which lists, in addition to the Obama-related cases, about a dozen or so other cases where the courts have ruled that children of foreigners born in the US are natural born citizens.There is a link to it here under “Docket” at the top of the page.

    Most of the cases in those string cites are lower court cases, with no binding precedent value. The older cases in which the natural born term was used, including Wong Kim Ark, were not on point, and only dicta. The newer ones were not binding on most courts. This issue needs to be taken to the SCOTUS. Before that, a lower court needs to analyze it thoroughly.

    What do you have in support of your opinion?

    There is a memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment that lays it all out, going back 400+ years. It’s here:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/19CWihIE4Jko6nCbapJqjmmj24a_wrghKDUfOACe7f-k/edit

  146. avatar
    ballantine April 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    We saw your memorandum. It is gibberish mostly copied from Donofrio who is wrong in every point he states. Seriously, I did not see one thing in that memorandum that wouldn’t be laughed at. Amateurs distorting and misconstruing law for 400 years. Seriously, you don’t get one case right. Quite hard to believe.

  147. avatar
    Rickey April 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm #

    Jerry Collette: .

    There is a memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment that lays it all out, going back 400+ years. It’s here:

    And where are the civics texts, history texts, and Constitutional law texts which state that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents? Why have Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Jerome Corsi, et al. been unable to identify even one? Heck, they can’t even find a civics teacher’s syllabus which says that two citizen parents are required.

  148. avatar
    Linda April 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Mr Collette, your “Do it Yourself Ballot Challenge” is an embarrassment. It simply makes a bunch of erroneous assumptions and analysis. No court has ruled the way you wish it would. You just misreport how the Court in Minor ruled and say the Court in Wong was in error. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution doesn’t define who is a natural born citizen, neither does the Court in Minor. The Court did not use the word “only” when saying that children of two citizen-parents were natural born citizens and specifically said for the purposes of that case it wasn’t necessary to rule on children born to aliens. You state that natural born and native born are not the same, yet the Minor case you keep misquoting uses them interchangeably.

    If that is the basis of your lawsuit, you have less than a snowball’s chance.

  149. avatar
    nbc April 9, 2012 at 7:05 pm #

    Jerry Collette: There is a memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment that lays it all out, going back 400+ years. It’s here:

    Nothing much here. The courts have consistently ignored these ‘arguments’ Why should they act differently now?

    But I do understand that you consider yourself unqualified to make these arguments, instead you hide behind nonsense of others.

    what a puppet you are..

  150. avatar
    nbc April 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    Linda: If that is the basis of your lawsuit, you have less than a snowball’s chance.

    Ignorance is also not an excuse for her failures, she is letting others manipulate her into foolish actions.

    What a tool

  151. avatar
    Scientist April 9, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Jerry Collette: And not a single one of them viewed the original docs. Most of them didn’t even rule on the merits. You asked what it would take. As I said, none of those 100+ cases met that. I contend that many antibirthers are afraid to have the original docs be made public.

    Your contention is of no value. Courts do not decide who can run for President. If that is what you are looking for, please go to the Islamic Republic of iran. They have such a provision there.

    Jerry Collette: Show me where in that paragraph that says that Congress or anybody else determines who is qualified. As I read it, it merely provides for a procedure if somebody does not.

    No body other than Congress is mentioned. Certainly not courts, nor the 3 Stooges (Taitzm Apuzzo and Donofrio). Courrts in the US aren’t supposed to elect the President. Again, the Islamic Republic of Iran sounds like the place you are looking for. Why haven’t you gone there?

  152. avatar
    Scientist April 9, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

    Jerry: Compare and contrast Obama’s documents with Rmoney’s. Thanks.

  153. avatar
    Majority Will April 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm #

    Scientist:
    Jerry: Compare and contrast Obama’s documents with Rmoney’s.Thanks.

    Come on. It’s not like birthers are going to start pretending it’s actually about the law.

  154. avatar
    Thomas Brown April 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm #

    Is it time yet for bumper stickers saying

    WHERE’S ROMNEY’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

  155. avatar
    Linda April 10, 2012 at 12:18 am #

    Thomas Brown:
    Is it time yet for bumper stickers saying

    WHERE’S ROMNEY’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Proof, as if more were needed, that this whole 2-parent citizen theory is a farce. I haven’t heard anyone demanding the birth certificates/naturalization records from all the republican candidates AND their parents. If it mattered, they would do that at the beginning of the race, not after the nomination when it is too late.

  156. avatar
    John Reilly April 10, 2012 at 12:28 am #

    The Republican candidates are white. That is a well-known exception to the rule that candidates must present their papers and go before a committee of clerics before they can run.

  157. avatar
    John Reilly April 10, 2012 at 12:32 am #

    Jerry is back, and now, at my urging and that of others, is actually referencing sections of the Constitution. Of course, he twists himself into a pretzel when he says that the Constitution only deals with a President who fails to qualify. Well, Jerry, that is the birther argument. That the President did not and does not qualify. Congress and the electoral College deal with it. Not some state court judge.

  158. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2012 at 3:17 am #

    Jerry Collette: There is a memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment that lays it all out, going back 400+ years.

    You do know that Leo’s amicus brief was introduced in the Georgia hearings and ignored. And in Illinois, the hearing officer said the brief was “illogical, nonsensical and not worth consideration”.

    Good luck with that.

  159. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 10, 2012 at 3:22 am #

    Linda: Proof, as if more were needed, that this whole 2-parent citizen theory is a farce.I haven’t heard anyone demanding the birth certificates/naturalization records from all the republican candidates AND their parents.If it mattered, they would do that at the beginning of the race, not after the nomination when it is too late.

    Especially considering that Romney’s father was born in Mexico, and both of Santorum’s parents were born in Italy…

  160. avatar
    Lupin April 10, 2012 at 4:21 am #

    Jerry Collette: There is a memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment that lays it all out, going back 400+ years. It’s here:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/19CWihIE4Jko6nCbapJqjmmj24a_wrghKDUfOACe7f-k/edit

    Speaking as a French lawyer with mire than a passing expertise on the subject I can tell you without any doubt that your comments regarding Vattel are complete rubbish. They would get you laughed out of a French court, and charges with costs.

  161. avatar
    Jim F April 10, 2012 at 10:34 am #

    The real contribution is from Lupin when he says “They would get laughed out of court and CHARGED WITH COSTS”. Until the U S courts adopt the same attitude the birther cases will continue without pause. Make it expensive and the fondness of going to court will wane.